“Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own”— this can be considered the basic philosophical principle of social relations just because it asserts the right of everyone to leave the territory of any state and therefore to escape the jurisdiction of any state. Although conditions in the world must change substantially for this principle to be always practicable, the import of its proclamation is the recognition that state sovereignty over the individual can be limited in the future.

Mr. Ghai has put the problem of expulsion of the British nationals of Asian origin from Uganda in its right perspective: It must be looked at not as a sui generis but as an example of the policy of Africanization being carried out in the whole of Africa. That policy is in conformity with the many UN resolutions adopted by the General Assembly since 1962, on the right of states to permanent sovereignty over all their natural resources.

The proposals of Mr. Chalidze and Mr. Chen are intriguing, but I would characterize their innovations as on the “frontier” at this time. Mr. Chalidze proposed the option of exile, in effect, as an alternate form of punishment for both political and common crimes—though, he considered, in practical terms the option would be available only to persons convicted for political acts. Many questions come to mind regarding this proposal, such as the uncertainty of the distinction between political and common crimes, and whether governments might not use the option to impose increasingly severe penalties so as to drive political dissenters into exile. However, I think it more urgent for the present discussion to concentrate on the right to leave as it applies to the ordinary citizen who has not been prosecuted or convicted for illegal acts, political or other, but who wishes to begin his life anew in another country for whatever reason.

Dr. Hassouna questioned the appropriateness of my inclusion of the claims of Jews to return to Israel on the ground that they want to settle there, not to return. This question illustrates the complexity of the group claims for return and the need for clarification. Return implies a certain subjectivity and identification on the part of claimants in relation to the area to which they wish to go. Many Jews outside Israel do believe they have significant ties with Israel and identify it as their homeland. In this sense, claims of Jews to return to Israel were included in the examples of group claims. It was meant to be descriptive, not preferential.